McCulloch v. Maryland
1977 · National Technical Information Service (via FedFlix)
Finding US Government work
The record names a federal body as the creating agency: Judicial Conference of the United States. A work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties has no US copyright (17 U.S.C. 105; before 1978, section 8 of the 1909 Act).
The record names a federal body as the creating agency. A work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties has no US copyright (17 U.S.C. 105; before 1978, section 8 of the 1909 Act). This says nothing about copyright outside the United States, or about music, stock footage or other material the film may incorporate.
- Creating body, as recorded
- Judicial Conference of the United States
- Internet Archive item
- gov.ntis.AVA02154VNB1 (uploader's licence mark: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/)
The record
The Internet Archive item's description, as transcribed by the uploader from the source archive's record. Check it against the National Archives catalog entry linked above.
Equal Justice Under Law McCulloch v. Maryland (2nd in a 4 part series). Dramatizations of historic decisions from the courtroom of America's great Chief Justice, John Marshall. Can states tax the operations of the federal government? In this unpopular decision, the Supreme Court dealt a great blow to a claim of states' rights by striking down a state's attempt to interfere with a legitimate federal activity. The Maryland Bank of the United States refused to buy stamped paper from the state of Maryland or to pay the annual $15.000 tax required by Maryland law. In 1818, the state of Maryland sued James McCulloch, the Bank's local cashier, for refusing to comply with Maryland law. The Baltimore County Court ruled against the Bank and the case was ultimately brought before the Supreme Court of the United States. The case presented two principle issues to the Court. First, was the federal law that chartered the Bank in conflict with state tax laws? Second, if a conflict did exist, should the federal or the state law take precedence? The Supreme Court held that since the Bank was necessary in order for Congress to meet its constitutional responsibilities, Congress had the implied power to charter a national bank. The states, however, did not have the power to tax the federal government's activities, and the Maryland law could not constitutionally be applied to the federal bank. This decision greatly restricted the powers of the states and engendered animosity toward the Court. This series includes: Marbury v. Madison , McCulloch v. Maryland , United States v. Aaron Burr , and Gibbons v. Ogden